The point about morality being subjective is that it is fatal to the notion of an objective morality.

I have explained again and again, that the basis for my morality is subjective but that does not mean we can't make objective claims about what is moral, all we need do is agree that the basis for morality is 'X' then we can agree on the best objective behaviour to achieve 'X'.

" You can't "impose" that what they did was wrong."

I can once we agree on the basis of our morality. You can't though, as you have to accept that anything your deity did is moral and remains objectively moral. So you'd have to accept that murdering everything on the planet in a global flood is morally acceptable, and that torturing a new born baby to death is objectively moral. Now do you accept those actions are objectively moral?

"You can't even say "better" as that would imply that one culture's morality could be superior to another's. "

That depends again what I think morality should be based on, and what it wants to achieve. It's you who can''t make this assessment, the best you can say is god wants it, and if that involves torturing babies to death you have to accept it's moral. You think blind adherence to a deity is moral, I think it necessarily involves preventing suffering, and that it should be based on the precept that all humans must have the same basic rights.

Now if you want to talk inconsistency, then your claim for objective morality needs you to state that torturing a newborn baby to death over 7 days is morally acceptable because it was conceived in an adulterous affair, can you do that? If not it is you who is being inconsistent.

I note you didn't attempt to answer my questions, not I have answered yours candidly, so we can only infer you know you're claim for objective morality is nonsense, or the bible is nonsense, which is it, and why?